dieresis
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: [Way OT] dieresis
Next: Parsing in Embedded Systems
From: D Yuniskis on 8 Mar 2010 13:02 Hi Boudewijn, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: > Op Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:29:33 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis > <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: >> David Brown wrote: >>> D Yuniskis wrote: >>>> David Brown wrote: >>>>> <rant> >>>>> >>>>> For people using Windows with English-language keyboard layouts, it >>>>> is extremely inconvenient to make proper use of diacritical marks >>>>> of any kind - thus people generally don't bother. I have no idea >>>>> why there is such a limitation here - after all, with non-English >>>>> keyboard layouts in Windows you have easy access to the more common >>>>> marks even when they are not part of your language (on my Norwegian >>>>> keyboard, I can easily write >>>> >>>> That goes to the point I was making -- that these "old" >>>> adornments are just no longer used. >>> First off, these "old" adornments, as you call them, are part of the >>> language for many non-English languages, and are very much used - >>> failing to use the correct marks is a spelling mistake. It is only >>> within the English-only world that people think it is acceptable to >>> omit them. >> >> That was my point. Many "foreign" (being US-centric in my comments, >> here) languages use *lots* of diacritical marks. > > What an American calls a foreign language is to me very ambiguous, > considering the use of Spanish now and in the past, the use of German > before WW1 and also the real indigenous languages! I think that's why USEnglish is so wonky. Too much "stolen" from other languages and then bastardized over the years. (though I heard a recent commentary alleging USEnglish is truer to "old" UKEnglish than current UKEnglish is, today). Couple that with regional differences (unavoidable with a land mass of this size) and its a wonder *anyone* can understand it! >> I particularly >> love the upside down interrogatives used at the start of questions! > > I actually use them when making notes to myself. Makes it easier to > decipher. But you can usually phrase a question so one of the "W-words" introduces it (at least for notes). >> [...] >>> Of course, there is the other point that languages change over time. >>> While many people would agree that "na�ve" should be spelt "na�ve", >>> very few people would write co�perate - it has gone out of fashion >>> long ago. >> >> Sure. Soon, OMG will have a formal dictionary entry, people will >> spell "God" (proper) with a lowercase G, etc. > > Not being a monotheist, I find it offensive to think that some god would > somehow deserve a capital letter while others do not. I do recognize There is no claim that it is any *particular* god. Most dictionaries qualify the "G" definition to be "In monotheistic religions..." so they cover their bases. I guess the real zinger is the existence of the word itself (regardless of case) in the eyes of atheists :> (but, then again, how would you describe what you *don't* believe in if you couldn't put a name on it?) > that not all gods were created equal, but that doesn't mean that anyone > has the right to define in language that some god (or some group of > allegedly exclusive gods) comes before others.
From: Tim Williams on 8 Mar 2010 17:38 "D Yuniskis" <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote in message news:hn3dc2$kvl$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > I think that's why USEnglish is so wonky. Too much "stolen" > from other languages and then bastardized over the years. > (though I heard a recent commentary alleging USEnglish > is truer to "old" UKEnglish than current UKEnglish is, today). > > Couple that with regional differences (unavoidable with a > land mass of this size) and its a wonder *anyone* can > understand it! Well, those in the deep South can be pretty thickly accented. Then again, those in the UK can be pretty thickly accented, too. How is it even possible that so many dialects are spoken on an island the size of Michigan (where, as far as I know, only two dialects are spoken, the odd one out being the Yoopers, eh)? We aren't even English and we speak the language better than the bloody English! ;-) Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
From: krw on 8 Mar 2010 18:38 On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:50:27 +0100, "Ignacio G. T." <igtorque.remove(a)evomer.yahoo.es> wrote: >El 05/03/2010 12:36, Boudewijn Dijkstra escribi�: > >> What an American calls a foreign language is to me very ambiguous, >> considering the use of Spanish now and in the past, the use of German >> before WW1 and also the real indigenous languages! > >What an American calls an American is also very ambiguous to me. Only to an idiot. > Indeed, most Americans speak Spanish, not English :-) Even in America.
From: JosephKK on 8 Mar 2010 23:37 On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:44:32 -0800, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:14:05 -0800, JosephKK wrote: > >> hat Distro/edition do you use? >> I am transitioning from opensuse 10.3 to opensuse 11.1. There is a lot of >> X changes under the hood. The Suse 11.1 kernel is 2.6.27.45... > >It isn't really a distro. it started out as bits of RedHat 6, with >additions, back in 2000. Since then it's had many changes of libraries, >and about 12 kernel changes and rebuilds total. > >Started with a 2.2 kernel, now 2.4.19, which supports everything I need. > >Unrecognizable as a distro. There's bits of Debian and Slackware in >there,too. > >Most of it was compiled from source on the target machine. So it is the Fred Abse version (not distributed). > >Now on its third set of hardware, and maybe fifth HDD. Aren't dd and GNU >parted wonderful? Originally it was spread across two smallish HDDs. > >Once I get something working the way I want it, I see no reason to change. >No major changes for a couple of years. > >Only reason I'd ever change X version would be if I wanted support for >dual head, which for me means never. Oh. Which X are you running? I tried dual head for a while but quit when widescreens started getting reasonable in price. Currently using a 24" 1920x1200(a)60Hz.
From: Boudewijn Dijkstra on 9 Mar 2010 04:35
Op Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:02:08 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: > Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: >> Op Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:29:33 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis >> <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: >>> David Brown wrote: >>>> D Yuniskis wrote: >>>>> David Brown wrote: >>>>>> <rant> >>> [...] >>>> Of course, there is the other point that languages change over time. >>>> While many people would agree that "na�ve" should be spelt "na�ve", >>>> very few people would write co�perate - it has gone out of fashion >>>> long ago. >>> >>> Sure. Soon, OMG will have a formal dictionary entry, people will >>> spell "God" (proper) with a lowercase G, etc. >> Not being a monotheist, I find it offensive to think that some god >> would somehow deserve a capital letter while others do not. I do >> recognize > > There is no claim that it is any *particular* god. Most > dictionaries qualify the "G" definition to be "In monotheistic > religions..." so they cover their bases. The point was that somehow monotheistic religions seem to deserve the great G, while the others are left with a mere g. >> that not all gods were created equal, but that doesn't mean that anyone >> has the right to define in language that some god (or some group of >> allegedly exclusive gods) comes before others. -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/ (remove the obvious prefix to reply by mail) |